This has been a decade of broadly attacking football, at least at the highest level, but at the start of 2010-11 the game stands at a crossroads. Internazionale's triumph in the Champions League, the predominance of reactive football at the World Cup and the growing realisation that nobody can match Spain/Barcelona at their brand of possession football, though, might mean a turn into defensiveness.

That said, six years ago football in Europe was in a similar position. José Mourinho had won the Champions League with a counterattacking Porto side and Greece had won Euro 2004 by man-marking the life out of games, and attacking football still prevailed. It's safe to assume that so long as Pep Guardiola remains the manager of Barcelona there will be significant opposition to any shift to the negative and it's hard to avoid thinking that whatever else happens this season, the big story, both tactically and in terms of personality, is going to be Mourinho's Real Madrid and their attempt to topple Barça.

For a couple of years, Spain and Barça had seemed like teams from another planet, their control of the possession so absolute they looked unbeatable. But then Inter in the Champions League semi-final showed how they could be stopped: defend deep, deny them room to pass through, occupy the full-backs to prevent overlaps and don't worry too much about possession. That second leg served as a reminder that a solid defensive shape, diligently maintained, can restrict any side, no matter how talented.

That was how every team apart from Chile played against Spain in the World Cup. Switzerland were successful, winning 1-0, but in the knockouts Spain remained calm, held possession, wore their opponents down and won each game 1-0: even their beauty became attritional. Top sides, of course, have been facing blanket defences for years; the suspicion is that this season lesser teams, inspired by Inter and Switzerland, will be even more dogged, even more negative.

Another feature of the football in South Africa was the use of three-man defences even against lone central striker systems – North Korea against Brazil, Uruguay against France — which demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice possession for the sake of having two spare men at the back. Again it seems likely that some lesser Premier League sides trying to nick a point away at one of the league's grandees will attempt something similar.

The Premier League side who probably best maintained their shape last season was Fulham, their progress to the final of the Europa League finally gaining Roy Hodgson proper recognition in England. The key to their achievement was long, hard, not particularly interesting work on the training field, working on positional play, and the key to whether Hodgson can enjoy similar success at Liverpool – which is probably the most interesting tactical issue at any Premier League club — is whether he can persuade a higher grade of player similarly to submit to what pretty much every Fulham player admitted was a punishingly boring training regime. Then again, after the control freakery of Rafael Benítez, any change may come as a relief, and the chastening experience of finishing seventh may encourage players to knuckle down.

The signing of Joe Cole raises intriguing questions as to whether Hodgson will stick with the 4-4-1-1 that was so successful at Fulham, or retain the 4-2-3-1 Liverpool have played for the past three seasons under Benítez.

The formation of the World Cup was 4-2-3-1, and the suspicion is it will come increasingly to replace 4-4-2 as the Premier League's default. If the offensive trident is made up of creators, it can be a very attacking formation; but lower Premier League teams are more likely adopt it for the solidity the two midfield holders offer; another indication of a probable turn away from proactivity towards reactivity.

This article will be found inside The Season, our free pull-out guide to the new campaign, available only in Monday's Guardian